Gay marriage already decided

Many were surprised when Proposition 8 passed in California the same day Barack Obama was elected president. It seemed strange that while a Democratic government was ushered into Washington D.C., gay marriage rights were being squashed across the state.

It came as a shock considering the liberal reputation of the state: if gay marriage is invalidated in California, what hope does it have in the other 49 states?

Being overshadowed by a historical presidential election did not keep gay rights activists from protesting the ban and making national headlines. Comedian Jack Black and company even posted a miniature musical about Proposition 8 suggesting it might boost the economy if gays were paying for elaborate weddings.

Now the California Supreme Court is considering weighing in on the November decision, having just legalized same-sex marriage last May.

It is unlikely that they will retroactively change the status of couples married before the ban.

Where does the Supreme Court draw the line on enforcing their opinion over the voting public of California? Proposition 8 passed with a mere 52 percent of the vote, but that is still a majority. If that is truly the desire of voters, then the Court should not interfere.

We support gay marriage, but not casually overturning a constitutional amendment. For civil rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender or transexual people to grow in the state, it needs to be done by the people and their own actions, not a few judges.

It is highly likely that those against the ban will rally at the polls next election and reverse the situation now that their attention is brought back to the subject. This could easily become a tug-of-war through the next decade.

Voters should consider that perhaps the California Constitution is too easily changed. Only 2 percent of the voters in California tipped the balance into denying people rights because of their sexual orientation.

While we may wish for the marriage ban to be lifted, think of how the history books will look at the struggle for these rights. It is an issue that should be decided by the citizens of California rather than by a small group of people in the court. 


Dissent

Editor’s Note: The Editorial Board was split almost evenly on this issue. The dissent offers the opinion of a substantial minority of Editorial Board members.

It is fairly certain that the California Supreme Court will uphold Proposition 8 in deference to the slim majority who voted for it.

While it is true that the public, to some extent, defines the rights accorded to others, we must be willing to morally justify stripping away the inalienable rights of millions of Americans.

Supporters of Proposition 8 have been unable to do this without resorting to religious arguments, in violation of the doctrine of separation between church and state.

By virtue of size, the minority is unable to defend itself in the public arena and requires the progressive support of the judiciary, a role it first carved out during the civil rights movement.

In validating Proposition 8, the court will establish a dangerous precedent in which it will become permissible for the majority to tyrannically vote on the rights of the minority.

This should worry all marginalized communities, whether religious, ethnic or racial.